Skip to content

Amtrak Wages Its Own War Against Children

 

KATHLENE M. writes:

I just found out today that the government-subsidized Amtrak is now promoting “Ride with Pride,” a pro-same-sex-family advertising campaign. The ads show two white “fathers” with a boy, and two black “mothers” with a girl. The Blaze has more background but you can also see this for yourself at Amtrak’s website.

I fully expect the Post Office will be next to promote homosexuality since, like Amtrak, it’s government-owned and losing money. So I won’t be surprised to see rainbow stickers on delivery trucks and a pro-homosexual stamp in the near future.

Is it hyperbolic of me to state that our government, especially the Obama administration, is evil? It is now overtly promoting abortion (with Planned Parenthood) and homosexuality with our taxpayer monies.

—– Comments —-

Laura writes:

This is too depressing. I am at a loss for words.

Kathlene writes:

It is depressing. I get to the point where I don’t want to read the news anymore. The only way I’ve found to keep from getting depressed about the evil around us is through constant prayer and by staying close to other traditionalists. Faith in God helps me cope, but your writings and those of your readers also help.

One of the liberal commenters at HuffPo mocked traditionalists/conservatives by saying that we’ll be forced to become Amish soon (that is, we’ll segregate ourselves into our own isolated communities) because we’ll have no place left to go, live, and shop. Actually I don’t see having our own community as being a bad thing at all since many conservatives are creating local networks for themselves. The problems begin when liberals insist that we live their way and bully us into paying for their beliefs, and when liberals “infiltrate” and change our communities and force us out.

I think it would have been more accurate for the liberal scoffers to say not that we’ll be forced to become Amish, but that we’ll be ushered onto government-controlled reservations soon, because that’s where they would prefer us to be. Liberals won’t be content to leave us alone in our own communities. They want to control us and force us to support their evil in our words, actions, and thoughts.

Ken writes:

Kathlene, I wouldn’t give up hope. The commentor at Huff Po may be feeling pretty good right now, but widespread use of contraception and abortion, as well as encouraging homosexuality will only lead to a decrease of liberalism. Last month, my family (my wife and myself and our six kids) walked out of St. Peter’s in the Loop, after having waited in line for half an hour for our monthly confession, and nearly smacked into two lesbians. I just smiled at them knowing they could never procreatively compete with us. Traditionalist should be fruitful and keep your children away from liberal brainwashing, ie public schools.

Jesse Powell writes:

As for liberals forcing us to become like the Amish, forcing us to live in self-segregated isolated communities, that is a rather odd “curse.” It is precisely the self-segregated religiously based isolated communities (such as the Amish) that are the only places thriving in America today. Regarding the very true statement “They want to control us and force us to support their evil in our words, actions, and thoughts.” one must always keep in mind that our souls always belong to ourselves and to God no matter what. God-given free will is always ours and we can always choose to obey or disobey what others “tell us” to do. There may be a high price to pay in obeying the will of God but the choice to obey God or not is always ours; our God-given free will guarantees this.

What I wish to comment on is this idea of “diversity” as it relates to family life that we hear about so often. Below is a quote from Amtrak as cited in The Blaze article linked to above:

“At Amtrak, diversity [referring to acceptance of homosexuality] is not just a corporate buzzword, it’s a priority. It‘s vital and it’s a commitment we make to our customers, our suppliers, our employees, and the communities we serve.”

What I find most interesting is how the catch word “diversity” is being used here. Now, is “diversity” a good thing? The homosexual emblem is the rainbow with its “diversity” of colors making the overall rainbow beautiful; the implication being that homosexuality is one of the “colors” of the “rainbow” that adds to the overall beauty of life. Are rainbows more beautiful because of their multiple different colors? Of course. However, the visual display of different colors to excite the eye is different from homosexuality.

“Diversity” is sometimes good and sometimes bad. People have “diverse” skills; some people are good at drawing, some are good at singing, some are good at math. This is a positive kind of diversity. The reason why this kind of diversity is positive is because diversity in comparative ability allows for everyone to gain the benefits of each person’s particular skill leaving the group overall better off. The person who is good at drawing does artwork for everyone. The person good at singing sings for everyone. The person good at math calculates for everyone. This allows the entire community to enjoy artwork, music, and technology even though each person on their own can only contribute a single item.

Diversity in food is another example of positive diversity. Everyone wants a varied diet not only for taste but also for nutrition. Each food item only contains particular nutrients and has a particular taste. Without variety any food will become boring and certain nutrients will be lacking.

However, there is also bad diversity; bad diversity comes when dealing with hierarchy. Health would be an example of this. Is a “diversity” of health situations good or would it be better for everyone to be “uniformly” healthy? Should 100 percent of people be disease free or should there be a “diversity” in health status? Should 20 percent of people have heart disease, 20 percent of people have cancer, 20 percent of people have Alzheimer’s disease, 20 percent of people be severely obese, and 20 percent of people be healthy instead? Surely the latter scenario is more “diverse” but it is clearly worse.

When looking at family situations one is not dealing with a “variety” model of differential special advantages that can be shared by all, the source of positive diversity; one is instead looking at a hierarchal model where everyone should be at the highest possible status level available. The different family possibilities; heterosexual married couple, cohabiting heterosexual couple, single parent, homosexual couple; these different family structures are hierarchal; they can be ordered from best to worst in terms of their level of functioning, in terms of their effect on children. In such a hierarchal situation “diversity” is exactly what you don’t want, what you want instead is uniformity at the highest status level; in this case the heterosexual married couple. You want all families to be made up of heterosexual married couples just like you want all people to be disease free. The heterosexual married couple is the highest family status level just like being without disease is the highest health status level.

Jane S. writes:

Why do people persist in using the word “diversity” in connection with homosexuals? Diversity is the last word I would use to describe them.

I used to live in San Francisco, where the Castro district was a popular homosexual tourist destination. The Castro is colorful and entertaining because it has beautiful old Victorians and a vintage movie palace with a Wurlitzer that rises up from the stage and hills with stunning views. None of which was produced by the people who live there now.

The homosexuals of the Castro are a bunch of boring, middle-aged white men. They dress alike, style their hair the same, even wear the same sunglasses. There is nothing interesting or stimulating about their cultural output, either. They are the dullest people you can imagine.

Jane S. writes:

Jesse Powell’s words about obeying the will of God reminded me of this C.S. Lewis quote: “I gave in and admitted that God was God.”

Share:EmailFacebook4Twitter2Pinterest0Google+0